# Dr. Julia Elizabeth Berry v. The Board of Supervisors of L.S.U., Etc.

> Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · September 26, 1983 · 715 F.2d 971

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9471062

## Case

- **Full name:** Dr. Julia Elizabeth BERRY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. the BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF L.S.U., Etc., Et Al., Defendants-Appellees
- **Court:** Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
- **Decided:** September 26, 1983
- **Citations:** 715 F.2d 971; 26 Wage & Hour Cas. (BNA) 706; 32 Empl. Prac. Dec. (CCH) 33,828; 32 Fair Empl. Prac. Cas. (BNA) 1567; 1983 U.S. App. LEXIS 16547
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurring in part by Tuttle
- **Judges:** Garwood, Tuttle, Politz, Gar-Wood
- **Cited by:** 378 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9471062

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- finding claims that occurred outside the statute of limitation may be used to show continued discrimination when the discrimination “was all of the same sort, it was continual, and it was a permanent condition”
- holding that continuing violation doctrine is less likely to apply when- time-barred acts “have the degree of permanence which should trigger an employee’s awareness and duty to assert his or her rights”
- holding that the mere allegation that a female professor was paid less than a male colleague for equal work stated a claim under the Equal Pay Act
- holding mere allegation that a female professor was paid less than a male colleague for equal work stated a claim under the EPA

## Opinion text

TUTTLE, Circuit Judge,
concurring in part and dissenting in part:
I concur in the disposition of this case, but I must respectfully dissent from that part of the opinion which states that the allegations of the complaint did not state a per se violation of the Equal Pay Act.
The complaint alleges that Dr. Berry was required to do twice as much work as her male counterparts for the same amount of pay. To say, as does the majority, that for an employee to pay a male and female employee the same salary and to require that the female do twice as much work for the salary is not to pay “wages to employees ... at a rate less than the rate at which he pays wages to employees of the opposite sex in such establishment for equal work” is, as it seems to me, to misread completely not only the purpose but also the language of the statute. To require twice as much work for a given dollar cannot satisfy the requirement of the statute that an employer pay the same rate of pay for equal work.
I would therefore hold that Dr. Berry’s complaint alleged a claim under the Equal Pay Act without the necessity for a remand to the trial court to consider whether she alleged a claim by stating that her extra workload made it impossible for her to earn outside compensation which was permitted to her male counterparts.
In all events, I concur in the disposition that is made by the Court in remanding the case for further proceedings.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9471062. Public record. Not legal advice.